The Good and the Ugly: A Tale of Two Capitol Hill Condo Developments

by guest contributor Carl Goodman

Much ink has been written on the Pine + Belmont mixed-use condo development. That’s the cheap profit-mongering venture by Weber + Thompson/Murray Franklyn. It’s slated to replace a vibrant block of Capitol Hill dive bars with a giant antiseptic edifice more appropriate to a nowheresville like Tukwila than the Pine/Pike Corridor. Weber + Thompson already despoiled Capitol Hill with its 2003 apartment monstrosity at 700 Broadway East and many of us feel that they’re gunning for a reprise with Pine + Belmont.

Less has been written on some really innovative projects by imaginative architects and developers.

I’m happy to report that I attended an Early Design Guidance Meeting earlier this week for a project entitled, “500 Belmont East,” a six-story condo planned near where I live. Designed and developed by a team from Arca Architecture + Urban Design, current plans call for a 62-unit, concrete and brick (that right, no stick construction!) stylish condo that improves, rather than detracts from, the current streetscape.

All units will have real decks, not those cheap warts called Juliet balconies that most other developers incorporate these days into their designs. Solid brick detailing and a majestic entrance portico are planned. The six or so ground-floor units facing Belmont will be two-story “townhomes,” integrated into the rest of the building but offering an attractive contrast to what otherwise could be a bulky façade. The building also sensitively handles its northern flank abutting the pocket park, Tashkent Park, by reducing the number of stories to lessen shadows and incorporating some attractive decking to make a nice transition from building to parkland.

Another innovative approach by the designer/developer is the hoped-for incorporation of an adjacent 22-spot outdoor parking lot owned by a nearby condo. The Arca folks are offering to swap those 22 spots for 32 indoor underground spots in their building that they would then dedicate to the neighboring condo. The neighboring condo gets a premium and the block loses an eyesore. (That neighboring condo still needs to obtain 100% homeowner buy-in for this proposed swap to occur.)

The average unit size at 500 Belmont is expected to be about 800 sq. ft., with the sq. ft. cost to be around $600-650 (or about $500,000 per unit). Not bad for what appears to be quality construction. If all goes according to plan, construction will start during 2Q 2008, with occupancy a year or 15 months later.

Arca Architecture also has in the works a 22-story condo called “SkyGarden” expected to be built near the historic Seattle First Baptist Church on First Hill. For that development, Arca plans large decks spiraling around the tower, with each story expected to be planted with different schemes of shrubs and trees. SkyGarden units are slated to be larger and pricier (starting at $1 million) than at 500 Belmont.

Urbnlivn trivia tidbit: Kyle Clark, one of the principals of Arca Architecture, shares Matt Goyer’s hometown of Winnipeg, Manitoba. Kyle says that he checks out Urbnlivn.com first thing every morning to keep abreast of trends and learn how best to accommodate our articulated desires for urban condo living.

And just to be fair to Weber + Thompson and their decidedly different approach to Capitol Hill residential development, the neighborhood groups POWHat (Pine Olive Way Harvard area triangle) and PPUNC (the Pike/Pine Urban Neighborhood Coalition), have been meeting with the Pine + Belmont architects and developers to see how they can make that complex less egregious. We should learn fairly soon how persuasive those groups have been.

About Carl Goodman
  • Curious

    Are they any renderings for the proposed development?

  • Curious

    Are they any renderings for the proposed development?

  • http://www.capitolhillseattle.com j

    Cool — the parking lot swap is great. Will be interested to see if it works out. I remain a sucker for green elements so I get jealous of developments I read about in Portland, etc. Seems like these developments have environmental focused design even if not focused on ‘traditional’ green elements like sustainability, etc.

  • http://www.capitolhillseattle.com j

    Cool — the parking lot swap is great. Will be interested to see if it works out. I remain a sucker for green elements so I get jealous of developments I read about in Portland, etc. Seems like these developments have environmental focused design even if not focused on ‘traditional’ green elements like sustainability, etc.

  • Chris

    Well, if $500k condos (I’m sure I’ll like them from the description, BTW) are what makes capitol hill a better place, than so be it. Architects/developers know what that want to build from a design standpoint and know that they’re prospective buyers/tenants can afford. Usually they are not the same thing, and so compromises have to be made – juliet balconies, vinyl siding. etc.

    So do we prefer design or affordability?

  • Chris

    Well, if $500k condos (I’m sure I’ll like them from the description, BTW) are what makes capitol hill a better place, than so be it. Architects/developers know what that want to build from a design standpoint and know that they’re prospective buyers/tenants can afford. Usually they are not the same thing, and so compromises have to be made – juliet balconies, vinyl siding. etc.

    So do we prefer design or affordability?

  • Chris

    must…edit…post…. sorry, I can’t type or do grammar this early

  • Chris

    must…edit…post…. sorry, I can’t type or do grammar this early

  • Former Lamplighter owner

    I recently sold my condo unit that was in the building across from this proposed 500 Belmont development. I will be completely stunned if they agree to the parking swap. In the years I owned there, when this topic came up in homeowner meetings, it was met with an extreme amount of resistance. The Lamplighter has a large group of older residents that have lived there 20+ years and who are not open to anyone stirring the pot – either for simple changes within the complex or something like this that would impact the owner’s assigned to the current spots across the street while construction occured. There is one resident in there that is so litigiously minded, he would almost certainly try and sue to block this. Just my two cents on the subject, but I did live there, so I know a lot about the characters the 500 Belmont developers will be “negotiating” with. Best of luck to them!!

    Oh and the 500 Belmont project will have zero westerly views – the Lamplighter is 11 stories tall and covers the entire width of the space this development is going into.

  • Former Lamplighter owner

    I recently sold my condo unit that was in the building across from this proposed 500 Belmont development. I will be completely stunned if they agree to the parking swap. In the years I owned there, when this topic came up in homeowner meetings, it was met with an extreme amount of resistance. The Lamplighter has a large group of older residents that have lived there 20+ years and who are not open to anyone stirring the pot – either for simple changes within the complex or something like this that would impact the owner’s assigned to the current spots across the street while construction occured. There is one resident in there that is so litigiously minded, he would almost certainly try and sue to block this. Just my two cents on the subject, but I did live there, so I know a lot about the characters the 500 Belmont developers will be “negotiating” with. Best of luck to them!!

    Oh and the 500 Belmont project will have zero westerly views – the Lamplighter is 11 stories tall and covers the entire width of the space this development is going into.

  • seattle67

    Responding to Chris’ point.

    I don’t buy the ‘do we prefer design or affordability’ argument anymore? The answer is that you can do both, construction materials keep getting better and tons of developers have already proven you it can work. I personally feel that this is the argument of lazy developers and designers who would rather just build according to their good ole ‘micro-balcony’ blueprints.

    If we want to bring density to this city that fits into our neighborhoods, we need to make sure all of our new multi-unit residential buildings are each uniquely designed to best integrate into their respective environments. I mean, wouldn’t you rather live in a building that your neighbors think is an asset to their community instead of a drain?

  • seattle67

    Responding to Chris’ point.

    I don’t buy the ‘do we prefer design or affordability’ argument anymore? The answer is that you can do both, construction materials keep getting better and tons of developers have already proven you it can work. I personally feel that this is the argument of lazy developers and designers who would rather just build according to their good ole ‘micro-balcony’ blueprints.

    If we want to bring density to this city that fits into our neighborhoods, we need to make sure all of our new multi-unit residential buildings are each uniquely designed to best integrate into their respective environments. I mean, wouldn’t you rather live in a building that your neighbors think is an asset to their community instead of a drain?

  • Foster

    Thank you, CG.

  • Foster

    Thank you, CG.